Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
pitkin.planning.246718300001 (2009)
.. ._~ DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat(s) ~„-~ Parcel ID: 2467-18-3-00-001 Application Date: 11/16/09 Case No: P122-09 Description: Planner: Mike Kraemer # Copies: 1 Allocated Hours: 3 Project Address: NO ADDRESS ASSIGNED, BASALT, CO 81621 % Over Hours: 3.2 Property Owner: TOWN OF BASALT Address: PO BOX O Owner Phone: BASALT, CO 81621 Owner's REP: SHANNON ULLMANN (SGM) Address: 118 W 6TH, STE #200 REP's Phone: (970) 945-1004 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 REP's Email: shannonU@sgm-inc.com Referrals: Comments Due Date: Meetings: 1st Meeting: Meeting Date: Review Body: admin Public Hearing? no Notice Date: Meeting Notes: Other Referrals: 2nd Meeting: 3rd Meeting: Approvals: BOCC Resolution #: P&Z Determination #: BOCC Ordinance #: HO Determination #: Admin Determination #: 102-2009 #564781 Other Information: VR Approval Date: Plat Recorded Date: VR Expires Date: Plat (Bk, PG): Remarks: no vesting Application Type: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE TOWN OF BASALT MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Administrative Decision No. !vim 2009 RECTTALS The Town of Basalt (hereafter the "Applicant") has applied to the Pitkin County Community Development Director ("Director") for a minor amendment to a development permit to allow minor, temporary construction activity during a time period that was prohibited due to the sensitivity of the azea for elk and deer Temporary construction activity proposed includes a vegetation survey of trees in the azea and the use a drilling rig to drill three (3) bore holes of a 30' to 40' depth to evaluate soil types. For the drill rig to access the tank site, the existing trail is proposed to be widened using a dozer. 2. The subject property (Owned by Richard Downey) is locatedjust west of the Town of Basalt boundary off South Side drive. The BLM land where the tank site is proposed is just west of the subject property. Both the subject lot and the BLM land aze zoned AR-10. The subject property is approximately 26 acres (Legal Descriptions -Exhibit A). 3. The Town of Basalt recently received approval for an Activity Envelope, Site Plan, and Special Review for a Major Public Utility for construction of a water tank that will service the citizens of Basalt pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 79-2009 recorded at Reception No. 564644. The Activity Envelope and Site Plan have yet to be recorded. 4. BOCC resolution No. 079-2009 stipulated in condition #5 that construction activity shall take place from June 1 to October 15. This condition was placed in the resolution because of the close proximity to sensitive elk and mule deer habitat. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has commented on the current proposal for temporary construction during this time period and states that the above mentioned activity in Recital #1 above may occur but must be completed before December 1, 2009. 5. The Applicant has successfully complied with conditions #2 and #3 of BOCC Resolution. The Town of Basalt's possession of the easement for access to the tank site is subject to Pitkin County, CO District Court Case # P09CV75 and Notice of Deposit with the CouR Registry dated November 9, 2009 subject to transaction #27735730. Use of Bureau of Land Management land is subject to Right of Way Grant Serial Number COC070774. 6. The Director finds that the Applicant has addressed Section 2-20-150(6) of the Code and has shown compliance with these standazds. THE DIRECTOR DOES HEREBY APPROVE the Town of Basalt Minor Amendment to a Development Permit, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made during the application process. 2. All conditions of BOCC Resolution No. 079-2009 shall remain in effect except for the following change no condition #5: RECEPTION#: 564781, 11125/2009 at 07:59:36 AM, t of 4, R $0.00 Doc Code ADMIN DECISION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO Administrative Decision No. ~~ 2009 Page 2 a. Temporary construction activity in the form of a vegetation survey, widening of the existing trail for a drill rig, and boring for soil types may occur prior to November 30, 2009. Activity and equipment must halt and be removed from the area before December l . 3. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval, or any subsequent permit(s) or approval(s) related to the Lot, or vested rights associated with the Lot. APPROVED by the Director, this ~ q day of 0 ~ 2009. ~~~ ~~~ Cindy Houben, Community Development Director P122-09 PID# 2467-183-00-001 ~ -SCHPIU=SER C,DRDDN ; MtYER a.~+K.c°sa+r~H_,a ~~'. u°esnz°pv+*a ../ . -- __ _ __.,___„__-. i d w, mv, same zm r.o. pox z: as ..o. eac a°6e ~1. }.,~ :~. c f :J g :; 5 ^_ ~~ 4 v ~ Y e z s c~dwo°° ss,~weS. co O: AJ ~ /3rPil. co 1:6i a enem° eu~; m 81 aid ' - °T}°4P1°O~' 4]612}y13~ pJ6J4P5353 ~'p>6O+S9pae ,x: G>09 atd:5> rt p]?a4PSJStl 20' AcceB's and li tility Easement ~ ~ `Ttva ~1fPp5 b~lapci,Ib'cafed on aparcel of laird dv;;criUed in i3oo:--: 679 :t page =100,1'itkin Covntgrecottls,hetei`ga~terrefetredtaastL+eDoivney?a;~e! beinfxatcdinTrac!il, SeCO,ob 1$,'1`nwnship 8 South, liattge 8G W_st of die 6`a P. tf Y;tldn Ca~.:nty, Colorzdu, will srigs:beiag 2r4en`ty (30) feel ~dt, fen (10) feet oti each side of tlic foUQa~idg described centerlines, with side lines being shortened or extended to meet parcel lines; Access and (Jtility Easerent T1o. 1 )3eginning on the westerly Line of said ISgwbey Parcel, &isin which a GLO brass cap Wracking angle point 4 of Tract 59. bears NDO°05'51 "PV, 702.54 feet; thence along ari existing road or track the following 14 courses: 1) 543°37'13"B, 65:34 feet 2) S47°a7'46"1;, 1Q6.27 feet 3) S31°55'00"B, 40.31 fed 4) 323°1$'36`'$, 39.35 feet 5) Sb0503'1`7"E, I7.58 feet 6) N81°Q6'03'~, 61.04 feet 7) S81°20'36"E, 13.43 feel 8) 563°52'[3"H, 36.70 feet 9) S57°36'45"E, 173.63 feet 10~ S73°32'29"B, 102,2.6 feet 11) S$7°44'12'~,4?.17feet 72) S48°19'$2'x, 74:23 feet 13) S53°23'40'8,95.41 feet 14) S?3°1?'4')"E, t 1.936 tae[; d;znce departing said exislin~ road or ir~ck SS9°09'58"E, l i2.3S feel, 16 feet northed y olf and p ral!e! to tk: saudte:!y lire o f slid Downey.Pnrce!, to a pout on the said existing rand or track; thence ce;~tin;lin_?along said existing road of frack the fallowing sever[ (7) courses; 1) N32°12' 13"SU, 63.04 feet 3) N07°46'Q3"E, 27.3$ feet 3) NZ4'42'p8"yf, 1$5.93 feet 4) N32°59'55°W, 49.3j feet 5) N14°16'31"4V; 210.55 feet 6) N45°3758"W, G5.36 fLet 7) T~'41°02'01"W, 58.62 feet to a Point A tlterrce departing said existingmad ox trackId42°24'1 S"li. $'7.10 feet; thence NI7°46' 15"F, 621.Q5 feed 10 feet westerly of and parallel to the nsittfieasterlylin8 b€said Downey Parcel 26 a point ort the northerly Lind of said thb Point of Tetminus_ 6XHtBIT I~, f'' r ~'~.._:Y A~esS ?~~ LT[iljty ;'asF~enE Nq. 2 :',)3~gimvngat a point on tTie easterly liua of said Dowueg Parcel fioin which the easterly at~tegoint of Said Parcel beatsNl9°44'14"W, 55.82 feet; thence S7S°19'09"N, 34.73 feet; thence 1V$9'43'33"VJ, 53.02 fe9t to the aforementioned 7?oipt A, said point being the Polnt ot" ll;aninus. 13earings are Based oit ibe nurhzrty lire ~f ssJ Dsvuey Parcel betweeA g btas~ cag GLO tnonutiteat marked AP ',Trait ?9, at the nonEati cst earner and the northeast comer, ,marked with a aluminum cap and ~S rebaz marked T,S ] 4060; said line bearing N89°45'47"E. i !+~ SCHMUESER ~ GoRDON I MEYER L E T T E R O F T R A N S M I T T A L ~v/ ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS ® 1 8 W. 6TH, SUITE 200; GLENWOGD SPRINGS, CO 81601 ^ P.O. BOX 2 55; ASPEN, CO 81621 ^ PO.BOX 3088; CRESTED BUTTE. CO 81 224 ^ 320 3RD ST.; MEEKER, CO 81641 TO, cl~.1L-1~ _.Si.~.7A lJ.~_.. IiOYV~Wt1-l Ny P~._. ~DYu~~M•p y_I _._.. DATE _-~~.~.IIQ .IVY _..- _.._._. __..._ ___... 13.0 S G-,At.eNn__5r. _ __ ATrx. iM~rx, ~¢-!ar?~nt-t?.___ (AJjSPEN I ~O _.... 8.lln ll..._ _..._ __._. _._-.. _. eRDJECn.. UAgSA~T...2_~?In.T~-.l.._ Sl.p-~._. T4iJ-tJ RE rTESO.LLlS1Q11.1 __-rF~N.I~-- ~M ENOM ENS.-...~LA-lMG°~:. FROJECT.NQ_{~OG O.a3-~JZ~..._.. __. -_._... WE ARE SENDING YOU ^ ATTACHED: ^ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ^ SUBMITTALS ^ DRAWINGS ^ LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ^ SPECIFICATIONS ^ COPY OF LETTER ^ CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ^ _._ -._-_ __- _.... _. _. _.. _.__ _. _.. _. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ^ FOR APPROVAL ^ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ^ RESUBMIT ( )COPIES FOR APPROVAL ^ FOR YOUR USE ^ APPROVED AB NOTED ^ SUBMIT C )COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ^ AS REQUESTED ^ RETURN FOR CORRECTIONS ^ RETURN ( )CORRECT PRINTS ~, FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ^~J FOR BIOS DUE: //~/~ / ~ T J c ^v PRI-NFT-S RETURNEDQAF~T/ER LOAN TO UpS /~ REMARKS...-..Y LSE _~-/C/.-L....... ~L1~14~Y~.~L~.. ~~l.~s ~ 11 T~1~.~_II~L /-(.~~.3~'/N/~0.~..-... S+lhAlr~fol~l l(~i-rU ~Nr~ /~j/~~//~, ,'',. COPY TO. _. _.. _.. SIGNED:. / l~~~ _.... __... GLENWGGD SPRINGS 970-945-1004 FX: 970-945-5948 ASPEN 970-925-6727 FX: 970-925-4157 ., ~ CU Ep ~uTr~ ~~970-349-5355 FX: 970-349-5358 MEEKER 970-878-5180 FX: 970-878-4181 `d`~°' November 12, 2009 Mr. Mike Kraemer, Planner Pitkin County Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO, 81611 RE: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit. Dear Mike: The Town of Basalt (the Town) is requesting to conduct activity within the approved activity envelope outside of the construction limitation dates specified in Item 3 of the Board of County Commissioners Approved Resolution. This letter is submitted in conformance with the Pitkin County Pre-Application Conference Summary for Minor Amendment to a Development Permit (Attachment 1). The activity to be conducted is described as follows: I. Vegetation Survey - Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. will dispatch a survey crew to the project site. The crew will survey the boundary of existing tree-line, and will survey outlying trees and brush taller than 5-ft. for location, height, drip-line and trunk diameter. The crew will also photograph outlying, surveyed trees and brush. The crew will consist of two surveyors, and one survey truck. Time on site will be approximately one working day. 2. Geotechnical Investigation - HP Geotech will conduct geotechnical investigation. This will include drilling three bores to a depth needed to encounter alluvial fan soil (anticipated 30- 40 ft. deep) in the location of the tank site. On-site equipment will include atrack-mounted drill rig and dozer to provide a stable driving surface to accommodate the drill rig in the vicinity of the second drainage (noted on Application Exhibit 3 as "BLM Drainage"). Anticipated time on-site is not expected to exceed three days, the duration of which is dependant upon weather conditions. The request to conduct this work after the designated October I S construction limitation was first reviewed by Kevin Wright of Colorado Division of Wildlife. Mr. Wright indicates that CDOW would allow this activity to take place between November l5 and December I, 2009. An email record of the correspondence is attached (Attachment 2). Prior Approvals Pitkin County BOCC heard the Town's Application for Activity Envelope and Site Plan with Vesting and Special Review for Major Public Utilities during a public hearing on September 23, 2009. The BOCC approved the Town's application on the date of the public hearing (Attachment 3). Proof of Ownership The subject property/location chosen for the South Side water tank and a portion of the access road is located on BLM property. The BLM Standard Format 299 (SF 299) application submitted to the BLM requests permission to use the area depicted in the AE to access the tank and construct the tank and water line. The BLM would retain ownership of the said property; BLM has granted the Town this easement. An excerpt from the environmental assessment indicating BLM approval is included as Attachment 4. Ownership of the access road to the tank on the Downey property will be retained by the current property owner. The applicant has been granted legal right to immediate easement possession (Attachment 5). s~ -I- C\ 1990\90040\B\324 South Side Tank\Pitkin Counry Permitting\1041_Pitkin County\20091 I Amendment Resolu[ion\20091112_1 U41 Ammendmen[ Letter doc ~[~,~03 Parcel Description/Legal Description & Vicinity Map Parcel Description, Legal Description and Vicinity Maps are provided in Attachment 6. Review Fee The check for the total review fee of $773 has beeh attached for your convenience. Fee Agreement The original signed fee agreement is provided in Attachment 7. Owner Consent to Process Application & Authorizing Representative The consent from the owner to process the application and authorizing a representative can be • .- found in Attachment 8. Pre-application Form The pre-application form can be found in Attachment 1. Land. Use Approvals Per the Pre-Application Conference Summary (Attachment 1), .the following land use codes apply to this project. Each code is addressed in italics in the remaining sections of this letter. For clarity, SGM has also included the sub-part headings or, where no heading is available, a concise, descriptive summary of each sub-part. 2-20-I50: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit -2- I:\1990\90040\B\324 Sou[h Side Tank\Pitkin County Permitting\1041_Pi[kin Counry\200911 Amendment Resolution\20091 112_1041 Ammendment Letter.doc ~~~9~~{t `"~' Pitkin County Land Use Code Review 2-20-150: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS (a) Applicability (bl Minor Amendments Defined A minor amendment [o any development application or permit is one that meets the following criteria, as determined by [he Community Development Director: (Q Is consistent with action(s) taken during previous development approvals for the property; and (1) Does not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial and tourist accommodation uses; and (3) Does no[ change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity occurs, including basic visual appearance and method of operation; and (4) Does not constitute a new land development activity; and (5) Does not increase off-site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood; and (6) Does no[ endanger [he public health, safety or welfare; and (7) Does not violate any Land Use Code standard; and (8) Does no[ substantially increase the need for on-site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation; and (9) Does no[ increase the floor area of the use by more than 5ve (5) percent or decrease the open space on the site by more than five (5) percent. The request is in conformance with the definition of MinorAmendment. The requested activity does not differ from [he original application but only deviates from the Resolved schedule by which this activity can take place. ~° (c) Major Amendment Defined Not applicable. (d) Amendments Prior to Issuance of Development Permit Not applicable. (e) After the Issuance of a Development Permit (I) M/NOR AMENDMENTS A minor amendment [o any development permit (except final subdivision plats or subdivision exemptions for which a separate process is outlined in Secs. 2-30-30) including SKI-REC and PUB master plans and special review approvals, intended to change an element or condition of a development permit may be approved administratively pursuant to [he standards and criteria in Sec. 2-30-20. The requested amendment is for deviation from a condition set forth in the Resolution. (2) MAJOR AMENDMENTS Not applicable. (f) Special Procedure for SKI-REC Master Plans and Major Master Plan Amendments Not applicable. ~_ -3- t\1990\90040\B\324 South Side Tank\Pitkin County Permitting\IIM I_Pitkin County\200911 Amendment Resolution\20091 112_1041 Ammendmen[ Letterdoc ~Oi~~05 Attachment 1 Pitkin County Pre Application Conference Summary a ~~~~~0~ gQ~~l4 bypass ~"PITKIN COUNTY PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY LOCATION: Downey property above the high school and BLM land PID# 2467-183-00-001 OWNERS: Bureau of Land Management and Charles Downey/Radine Coopersmith APPLICANT: Town of Basalt REPRESENTATIVE: Shannon Ullmann (SGM) PHONE and EMAIL: 945-1004, Shannontl a?s_m-inc.com DATE: November 4, 2009 PLANNER: Mike Kraemer, 920.5482, michaelk.r co.pitkin.co.us Type of Application: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit. Descripfion of Project/Development: The Applicant has requested to amend a "no work" stipulation in a recently adopted Activity Envelope and Site Plan BOCC Resolution for construction of the Basalt south side water tank. The resolution has yet [o be recorded. Land Use Code Sections to be addressed in letter of request (application): Sec. 2-20.150: Minor Amendments to a Development Permit Staff will refer the application to the following agencies: CDOW has already provided comments. Review by: Community Development Director Public Hearing: No. FEES: $773 (make check payable to "Pi[kin County Treasurer") Planning Office flat fee: $748 (non-refundable; based on 3 hours of staff time for review); if staff review time exceeds 3.2 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time above 3 hours at a rate of $249/hour) ~' o Web Technology Fee: $25 To apply, submit l CODV of the following information, unless noted otherwise: 1. Summary letter explaining the request, providing background on prior approvals and permits, and addressing compliance with the Code sections listed above. 2. Previous Land Use Approvals (if applicable); 3. Proof of ownership of subject property; 4. Parcel description, including legal description and vicinity map; 5. Total fee for review of the application; 6. Signed fee agreement (1 copy); 7. Consent from owner(s) ro process application and authorizing [he representative (1 copy) 8. Copies of this pre-app form NOTES: - PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE-SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION PLEASE SUBMIT TWO-SIDED COPIES OFALL REMAINING COPIES OF YOUR APPLICATION (IF POSSIBLE). THE PARCEL IDs SHOULD BE INCLUDED ONALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN YOUR APPLICATION - ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED. - This pre-application conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in this summary is based on current zoning standards and staff's interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information maybe required upon a complete review of the application. - The Pitkin County Land Use Code and Application Manual is available on-line at hnn -'%wwn~ aspenpitkfn.coniicleTts!?/plannine.cfi:~ 'r...- u~ ,'`?~7 ~.~. Attachment 2 Email Correspondence with Colorado Division of Wildlife ~. "~,-. OO~.iL08 Page 1 of 2 ~,, Shannon Ullmann From: Wright, Kevin [Kevin. Wright@state.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:07 AM To: Shannon Ullmann; michaelk@co.pitkin.co.us Subject: RE: Town of Basalt -South Side Tank Mike, I confirm what Shannon has detailed. I will be unavailable from Nov. 16 through at least Nov. 30. Any test drilling needs to be done Nov. 15 -Dec. 1. This avoids hunting seasons and winter range issues From: Shannon Ullmann [mailto:ShannonU@sgm-inc.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 1:14 PM To: Michael Kraemer Cc: Wright, Kevin; Larry Thompson; Chris Lehrman Subject: Town of Basalt -South Side Tank Mike, To summarize last week's email, [he Town of Basalt would like [o conduct preliminary geo[echnical evaluation and vegetation survey at the South Side Tank site. We are now aware that our permit does not allow any onsite activity after ''~-' October l5`h and [hat [o do so, we would have to file a Permit Amendment to be reviewed by Kevin Wright at DOW and approved by Pitkin County Staff. I spoke with Kevin Wright at DOW regarding our request to conduct preliminary investigations on the South Side Tank site. He is cc'd on this email and may clarify any of my points if needed. Based on my description of the investigations that 1 gave to you in last week's email (same as that given [o Kevin this afternoon), he indicated the following: Vegetation survey is fine <. - 2. Geotechnical boring would only be okay if we were to conduct i[ between hunting seasons. The dates he stipulated are November I5`~ through December I s'. 3. Kevin also said that Pitkin County would have [o be okay with a verbal confirmation from him that our request is okay. He is extremely busy with hunting season and anticipates being out of [he office for health reasons in the near future. For these reasons, he would not be able [o do a review and write a formal letter, but would be willing [o give approval over the phone. I'd like to get your feedback on Item 3 and your opinion as to whether the amendment can be formalized by November I5`h, so that, if possible, we would be able [o get these preliminary investigations taken care of this year, leaving ample time for constmc[ion beginning next June. Thanks, Shannon Ullmann, E.I. I 1 / 10/2009 Page 2 of 2 $CHMUESEFt ~'iGf]FiDUM MEYER ~xairazcn9lsuwvcva~es E 1 S lN~sr ~~ S'r~E~r, Sum 249 C+L~i~tW[}C1p SPR3MGS, CCl 8 i C'iQ R 479°946- E 494 I SAX:. 8703-~Js}6°~94~3 tMW'N,Si3M-INC.C4M 11 ~1 ~~2~~9 Page l of 2 ,~ Shannon Ullmann From: Wright, Kevin [Kevin. Wright@state.co.us] Sent: Thursday, November O5, 2009 7:50 PM To: Shannon Ullmann Cc: Will, Perry Subject: RE: Town of Basalt -South Side Tank: Pitkin County Resolution and Amendment I am still OK with that but it must be done before Dec. 1. That date I will not deviate from. They can make a check out to the Colorado Division of Wildlife but it must be designated/earmarked for Light Hill Habitat Improvement. It can be sent to Colorado Division of Wildlife, 50633 hwy 6 & 24, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. We will then forward it to Denver where it will be deposited into an account for the Light Hill project. I will check with my supervisor as well to be sure about the lOk donation to the Light Hill project fund From: Shannon Ullmann [mailto:ShannonU@sgm-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, November O5, 2009 3:04 PM To: Wright, Kevin Subject: Town of Basalt -South Side Tank: Pitkin County Resolution and Amendment `` Kevin, t left a voice message with you [his morning, but knowing you are busy, I am trying a variety of methods for getting a hold of you. The Town is wrapping up the loose ends of Pitkin County's 1041 Resolution requirements, one of which includes a $10,000 contribution to CDOW's wildlife mitigation fund. The Town is prepared to make that contribution, but wants to verify who to make the check out to. Please let me know. Next, I spoke with the Geotech investigator today, and wan[ to clarify an element of the work that would be conducted as part of their investigation (I don't want to mis-represent what is involved). HP Geotech told me that onsite equipment will be a track mounted drill rig and [hat some dozer work will be needed to access [he trail. I was unaware of the latter. SGM will be onsite when the dozer work is conducted [o make sure that the disturbance is limited, but I want to make sure that this is still within [he realm of approval that we initially discussed. Please verify [hat you are still in agreement with the Town conducting the Geotech and Vegetation survey from November I S [o December 1, of this year. Thank you again for your time, Kevin. Thanks, Shannon Ullmann, E.I. ..~,, J~~~J11 I 1 / 10/2009 SGH NfFIESER: CaL7RDOfJ (MEYER s~oiwcenslsuRwcr~sRs R ] 8 WEST 6rM S-r€e~~r, SU€'r~ ~4G3 CsL~N1k±000 SPRfNCS, Gp 8 R 6o R 9747°945• R 4f74 C ~nx: 974°94b°594€3 XMM1MYJ,SGM-ING.GOM Page 2 of 2 €~~t)~IZ 11/10/2009 Attachment 3 Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Resolution ~.. ~~~J~1~ Attachment 4 BLM Access Approval -Environmental Assessment Excerpt ~., ~t ~Qt~~l~t '~°' Form 2800-14 Issuing Office (August 1985) Glenwood Springs Field Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT SERIAL NUMBER COC070774 A right-of--way is hereby granted pursuant to Title V of the Federal land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2776; 43 U.S.C. 1761). 2. Nature of Interest: a. By this instrument, the holder: Town of Basalt 101 Midland Ave Basalt, CO 81621 ~, receives a right to construct, operate, maintain, and terminate a municipal water tank and related access road and pipeline on public lands described as follows: 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin County. Colorado T. 8 S., R. 86 W. Section 18; Lot 23 And as shown on the attached map in Exhibit A. b. The right-of--way area granted herein is 20' X 852' for the access road and buried pipeline, and 1 Million Gallon Water tank containing 1.31 acres, more or less. c. This instrument shall terminate on December 31, 2038 ,unless, prior thereto, it is relinquished, abandoned, terminated, or modified pursuant to the terms and conditions of this instrument or of any applicable Federal law or regulation. d. This instrument may be renewed. If renewed, the right-of--way or permit shall be subject to the regulations existing at the time of renewal and any other terms and conditions that the authorized officer deems necessary to protect the public interest. "w...., Page 34 oj43 i3t~iJ~15 e. Notwithstanding the expiration of this instrument or any renewal thereof, early relinquishment, abandonment, or termination, the provisions of this instrument, to the extent applicable, shall continue in effect and shall be binding on the holder, its successors, or assigns, until they have fully satisfied the obligations and/or liabilities accruing herein before or on account of the expiration, or prior termination, of the grant. 3. Rental: For and in consideration of the rights granted, the holder agrees to pay the Bureau of Land Management fair market value rental as determined by the authorized officer unless specifically exempted from such payment by regulation. Provided, however, that the rental may be adjusted by the authorized officer, whenever necessary, to reflect changes in the fair market rental value as determined by the application of sound business management principles, and so far as practicable and feasible, in accordance with comparable commercial practices. Rental was determined by the DOl, Appraisal Services Directorate to be $1824.00 annually, or $14,924. DO 25 year advance payment. 4. Terms and Conditions: a. This grant is issued subject to the holder's compliance with all applicable regulations contained in Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations part 2800, and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and standards. b. Upon grant termination by the authorized officer, all improvements shall be removed from the public lands within 90 days, or otherwise disposed of as provided in paragraph (4)(d) or as directed by the authorized officer. c. Each grant issued for a term of 20 years or more shall, at a minimum, be reviewed by the authorized officer at the end of the 20th year and at regular intervals thereafter not to exceed 10 years. Provided, however, that aright-of--way or permit granted herein may be reviewed at any time deemed necessary by the authorized officer. d. The plans, maps, and designs set forth in the Application, the map in Exhibit A, and Special Stipulations and Condition in Exhibit B, attached hereto, are incorporated into and made a part of this grant instrument as fully .and effectively as if they were set forth herein in their entirety. e. Failure of the holder to comply with applicable law or any provision of this right- of-way grant or permit shall constitute grounds for suspension or termination thereof. f. The holder shall perform all operations in a good and workmanlike manner so as to ensure protection of the environment and the health and safety of the public. Page 35 of 43 ~I~ju1G Attachment 5 Legal Documentation for Private Easement Access ~. ,. ~t~~~a~17 .~... PITICIiV COUNTY, COLORADO :DISTRICT COURT Court Address: Pitkin County Courthouse 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone Number: 970-925-7635 Plaintiff(s): TOWN OF BASALT vs. Defendants}: RICHARD E. DOWNEY; RADiNE COOPERSMiTH; GREENBERG, HERRINGER & WARD, LLC; and BETTY DILLER, Trustee and Case Number: P09CV75 Treasurer of Archuleta County Div.: 3 ORDER re ardin IMMEDIATE POSSESSION This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff s motion for immediate possession and ~ v Defendant Coopersmith's related motion to dismiss. The Court has considered the evidence and argument presented at the hearing, the supplemenfal record authorized by the Court on September 25; 2009, and the pertinent pleadings, and the Court is otherwise fully advised. Therefore, the Court finds, concludes and orders as follows: 1. This is a condemnarion case. Defendants Richard Downey and Radine Coopersmith (collectively Ow~ters) own a 25-acre parcel (the Property) adjacent to the west boundary of a parcel occupied by Basalt High School and owned by Plaintiff the Town of Basalt. Basalt seeks to condemn an easement across the Property. Basalt proposes to install a new water tank to become part of Basalt's municipal water system. The proposed location for the tank is on property owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. A proposed water pipeline will connect the tank to existing Basalt water lines on the site of the Basalt High School. The parcel owned by Downey and Coopersmith lies between the tank site and the high school site. The easement proposed for condemnation will be for the water line, including its construction, maintenance and repair and for access to the water tank, including for its construction, maintenance and repair. 2. As part of the condemnation process, Basalt seeks immediate possession of the easement area. To obtain immediate possession, the Basalt bears the burden of proof on five elements: a. Basalt has the legal authority to condemn the Property. See Board v. Intermountain Rural Electric Assn 655 P.2d 831 (Colo. App. 1982).. b. Basalt seeks the Property for a proper public purpose. See Denier West Metro Dist. V. Guedner. 786 P.2d 434, 436 (Colo. App. 1989}. _-i:~~18 Town of Basalt v. Dawney~ Case No. P 09 CV 75 c. Basalt needs the Property immediately. See Swift v.,.Smith. 241 P,Zd 649, 615 (Colo. 1948). d. Before filing this case, Basalt negotiated in good faith to acquire the Property. See City v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrieation Co. 575 P.2d 382, 391-92 {Colo. la7x}. e. A sum to be deposited ifl the Court's registry is sufficient to pay the amount which will likely be due after the compensation doe Owners is determined. § 38- 1-145(6}{a), C.R.S. 3. With respect to the pipeline aspect afBasalt's condennuttian request, Basalt must also show the proposed easement falls within "the most direct route practicable" and if adjacent utility rights-of--wag exist, they have been considered. § 38-1-.141.5, C.R.S. This standard.does not apply to the access aspect of the easement Basalt seeks. Nor does it apply to Basalt's selection of the site it desires for the water tank. In general terms, for condemnations ether than pipelines, if Basalt has a proper public purpose, the town has the authority to pursue condemnation of any location where it decides to implement that public purpose. 4. Authority to condemn: Basalt is a #awn and has, statutory authority to exercise the power of eminent domain. § 38-1-242{d), (e}, C.R.S. 5. Public Purpose: The mayor and the town engineer for Basalt testified. They confirmed that Basalt needs the water tank to correct a deficiency in the town's water system and that Basalt needs the access and pipeline easement across the Property to connect the tank to Basalt's . existing water system. This is a proper public purpose. 6. Immediate Need: Among Basalt's specific purposes is its desire to establish a water supply on the south side of the Roaring Fork River and Highway 82. This new supply will be in the Form of a new water storage tank. A# present, the entire water supply is an the north side leaving the south side at some risk if the water connections across the river and the, highway were compromised For the entire water system to function by gravity, as intended, the new tank must be installedat the same elevation as Basalt's existing water tanks. This limits the locations where the new tank practically can be placed. The tank site selected is an appropriate site. 7. Since the Property is located between the new tank site and the existing water system, Basalt has shown a need for an access and pipeline easement across the Property. $. The flank site is located on BLM property. The preponderance of the evidence indicated the BLM will not great the approval necessary far the water tank until and unless Basalt obtains a connecting easement such as the one sought here. The exact time when construction might begin is uncertain, but Basalt. must obtain governmental approvals and an easement before construction can begin. Basalt desires to begin construction when weather permits. Basalt needs access before construction can begin. The final design of the pipeline cannot be completed without access for some geotechnical investigation. Basalt also needs access so that appropriate ~~'~~ 13 Town of Basalt v. Downey Case No. P 09 CV 75 .- contractors can prepare bids for Basalt to consider. Basalt has shown a sufficiently immediate need to support its request for immediate possession. 9. Good faith negotiation: The condemnation statute authorizes the filing of a condemnation case only if the proper compensation "cannot be agreed upon by the parties interested." § 38-1-102(1), C.R.S. To meet this prerequisite, Basalt must show it negotiated in good faith to acquire the Property. 10. In case law, good faith for condemnation purposes has a narrow definition. The burden is met by showing the condemning authority made a "reasonable good faith offer" and allowed the property owner a "sufficient" amount of time to respond Citv of Thornton v. Farmers Reservoir irrigation Co., 194 Colo. 526, 539, 575 P.2d 382, 392 (1918). In Citv of Thornton, the condemning authority made a written offer and asked for a response within 15 days. The defendant irrigation company considered the offer at a shareholders' meeting about one month after the original written offer. The company did not respond to the offer. The trial court found the company did not intend to negotiate and concluded there had been a failure to agree. The City of Thornton commenced the condemnation case 11 days aRer the shareholders meeting (about six weeks after the original offer). The Supreme Court upheld this fording and conclusion. 11. In the context of conde~mttation, good faith does not require lengthy negotiations. Good ~~ faith does hot require face-to-face negotiations. Sheridan Redevelopment A¢encv v. Kai .htsbridee Land Co.. L.L.C.. 166 P.3d259, 266 (Colo. App. 2007). 12. The use of a professional appraiser to establish the amount of an offer is a factor in evaluating good faith. City of Holyoke v. Schlachter Farms R:L.L.P. 22 P.3d 960, 963-964 .(Colo. App. 2001). 13. The amount offered by a condemning authority is also a factor in evaluating good faith. However, a low offer is not dispositiVe of that evaluation. Board of County Commissioners v. Blosser 844 P.2d 1237, 1240 (Colo. App. 1992), In Blosser, the trial court concluded the condemning authority's appraisal and offer were flawed because they failed to take into account certain costs and the effect of those costs on the remainder of the owner's property. Based on this conclusion, the trial court found the condemning authority failed to negotiate in good faith; the trial court dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred. -The condemning authority made an. offer which was not rejected, accepted or countered for the two intervening months before the condemnation case was filed. -The Court of Appeals found the trial court's factual conclusions speculative. 14. Here, the Owners' Property is subject to an option to purchase held by an entity, Roaring Fork River Development, LLC, whose principal at the relevant times was Fiore. With authority under the option agreement, Fiore has pursued development approvals from Basalt for years. Basalt's initial communications about the easement it now seeks were made with Fiore. Basalt. assumed incorrectly that Fiore-could act on behalf of Owners with respect to the easement. ~. `,j~Iij~c~~ `. Town of Basalt v. Downey Case No. P 09 CV 75 15. As a consequence, Basalt had no direct communication with Owners for a long time after Basalt became interested in extending its water system through the Property, Though unin#entional, this failure of communication aggravated the situation as it later developed. 16. Nevertheless, Basalt did convey its purchase offers to Owners. The first purchase offer was dated September 23, 2008, Exhibit F. It was based on a March 2007 appraisal which valued the easement at $40,500. This offer was mailed to both Downey and Coppersmith at Downey's address. Downey and Coppersmith are former spouses, and the joint address was the last address known to Basalt. Downey received the offer on September 30. In response to his receipt of the offer, Downey advised Basah that his address was not correct for Coopersuiith. Downey's caunsel,provided to Basalt contact. information for Caopersmith. On October 30, 2008, Basalt forwarded the offer to Coppersmith at the new address provided. Exhibit J. The return receipt indicates this.letter was received on November 10, 2008 by Ms. McCulloch, described on the return receipt as an agent for Cooperstnith. 17. As noted by Coppersmith, delivery in foot to her did not occur on November 10, 2008. However, she did have the offer at least by the fime she discussed it by telephone with the town engineer Thompson and manager E$ing on December $, 2008. In that conversation, Coppersmith asked about Ute possibility of getting land use approvals in exchange for the easement. She also advised. Thompson she would like to engage in further discussion about the location of the easement. She advised Thompson about the ownership dispute between Coppersmith and Downey through Coppersmith's challenge of orders in the divorce court. . Coopersmitlx did not accept the offer. She did not make a counteroffer. 18. Coppersmith talked tivith Basalt's mayor by telephone in early December 2008: Caopersmith advised the mayor that she was concerned about the easement and the town's Iack of communication: Basalt referred her to the town manager leading to the conversation described above. 19. Basalt obtained a second appraisal, Exhibit M. That led to a second offer, Exhibit N, a lower offer based upon the second appraisal which valued the easement at $25,000 as. of January 13, 2069. The second. offer stated a condemnation action would be commenced if Basalt did not receive a response within a "reasonable time." Basalt mailed the offer to both Coppersmith and Downey at Basalt's then understanding of the parties' addresses. The evidence is.in conflict whether Caopersmith actually received the second offer. Onc notation on ExhibitN indicates the latter was returned "unclaimed;' However, the notation is on the letter, not the envelope which would have been accessible to the postal service. A tracking report from the postal service indicates the offer was delivered on February 10, 2009. Basalt received no responses to the second offer. In the time after the second offer, if Coppersmith was not aware of it, she still did not respond to the first offer which would have remained outstanding if the second offer was not made. By a preponderance of the evidence, the Court finds both parties receivod the second offer. Town of Basalt v. Doumey Case No. P 09 CV 75 ..- 20. Like Coppersmith, Downey was concerned about the location selected for the easement. Downey did not have a particular objection to the price offered if the easement were moved to a different location. To the extent potential negotiation was complicated by the strained relationship between Coppersmith and Downey, that is an issue between Coppersmith and Downey and does not change materially Basalt's obligation of good faith since both offers were ultimately delivered to both Owners. 21. The issue before the Court is not whether Basalt might have addressed its desire for an easement in a manner which would have led to a better relationship. with Owners or led to resolution by agreement. The issue is whether Basalt's approach was sufficient to constitute good faith as that term is defined by case law applicable to this condemnation. By a preponderance of the evidence, the Court concludes Basalt did. satisfy this standazd. A first. offer was made which both Owners received by not later than early December 2008. The offer was equal to the value of the easement as determined by a 2007 appraisal. A second offer was made in eazly February 2009. Although lower, the offer was equal to the value of the easement as determined by a more recent appraisal. Basalt filed this condemnation action in eazly April 2009. fit the intervening four months from receipt of the first offer, Owners did not accept the first offer (or the second offer made in February 2009) and did not make a counteroffer. The offers were based on appraisals and were reasonable. These circumstances are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of good faith as defined by law. ~, 22. Appraisal requirement: Section 38-1-121, C.R.S. required Basalt to notify Owners of its desire to acquire the easement "as soon as a condemning, authority determines that it intends to acquire an interest in property." As applicable here, the notice is required to include notice that Basalt would pay for an appmisal obtained by the Owners within 90 days of the notice. Basalt provided the notice abort the appraisal by letter dated May 26, 2009, Exhibit R, a date after Basalt had made its two offers and after this condemnation case had been filed. Basalt was tazdy in notifying Owners about their right to an independent appraisal at the Town's expense. However, the required notice was given, and Owners obtained an appraisal pursuant to that right. 23. Although Owners indicate they remain willing to discuss the easement Basalt desires, through the final day of the hearing, Owners have never made a counteroffer as to either location or the amount of compensation. 24. The Court concludes the late notice about Owners' right to an appraisal is not a defect which defeats the Court's jurisdiction or defeats the Court's finding that Basalt met its obligation of good faith. 25. Need for Ordinance or Resolution: The parties disagree whether Basalt was required to authorize acquisition of the easement by a formal resolution or ordinance. Basalt adopted such a resolution, Exhibit A, on August 25, 2009. Among other things, the resolution approved retroactively the acquisition of the easement and the pursuit of this condemnation action. The parties have offered no law which indicates such a resolution is a jurisdictional prerequisite to ti.... u~ir~122 Town of Basalt v. Downey Case No. P 09 C V 75 the filing of a coademnation action. If an error occurred, it has been rectified, and the issue is now moot, 26. Alternative routes Basalt's mayor confirmed no existing public easements connect the school site to the vicinity ofthe water tank. No such easement exists on the property offering the shortest route, that is, the Owners' Property here. Nor does such an easement exist an the Grrange property located immediately to the north of the Property. Nor does such an easement exist on BLM property located immediately to the south of the Property. 27.On the Owners' Property, the route selected by Basalt first travels north following an existing unimproved road generally along the east boundary ofthe Property. Then, the route . toms west and generally goes along an existing track on. a bench in the hillside, .Basalt picked this route for several reasons: First, it follows an existing track, albeit one that drops from unimproved road to a double vehicle track to a single path to a vague historic trail. Second, in the opinion of Basalt, the route will have the.least visual impact from the highway 82 area. Third, the route requires less disturbance of slopes and vegetation and avoids the steep grades which would be required in other locations. 2S. An alternative discussed in the evidence was to cross the Property near its northern boundary, a flat meadow area, and then turn to ascend the hillside to the tank site. Basalt rejects this possibility because of the steepness of the slope, the dense vegetation on that slope and the unobstructed visual impact. 29. The town also rejected other sites for the water tank, sites which might place the. connecting pipeline somewhere other than the Owners' Property. Af the required elevation, the BLM property directly south of the school does not have a site suitable for the water tank. The property to the north or northwest drops toward the Roaring Fark and does net have a suitable tank site. A possible tank site on the Owners' Property would have a geeater visual impact on Basalt and highway 82. Minimizing visual impact was a factor in Basalt's site selection. Basalt also understands visual impact#o be a factor in the approvals Basalt needs from Pitkin County and from the BLM. 30. No adjacent utility easements exist. The preponderance of the evidence indicates Basalt seeks to condemn the most direct ronte practicable. 31. Absence of BLM permit and Pitkin County appravai: At the. time of the hearing, Basalt. . had not received the pernut it needs from the BLM to install the water tank. The record indicated the permit process is underway, and it is more likely than not that the permit will he issued. Nor had Basalt obtained the land use approval it needs from Pitkin County. The supplementaE record authorized by the Court revealed that Pitkin County subsequenfly granted the necessary land use approval. However, the approval is not final because one ar both Defendants indicate they are pursuing an appeal of the Pitkin County approval. ~.. Town of Basalt v. Downey Case No. P 09 CV 75 „y 32. The absence of these final government approvals is relevant to, but not dispositive of, Basalt's request for immediate possession. If Basalt were unable to obtain required governmental approvals, the water tank project might not go forward. If the project cannot go forwazd, the public purpose upon which Basalt relies would disappeaz. Consequently, as noted in Public Service Co. v. Shaklee, 784 P.2d 314, 317 n.3 (Colo. 1989), the likelihood the permits will be obtained is a factor in the evaluation of public purpose. 33. Here, it is more likely than not that the required governmental approvals will be obtained. Basalt has met its burden of proof to show a public purpose. The absence of firial governmental approvals does not defeat Basalt's authority to proceed with the condemnation. 34. Deposit:. In a condemnation action, the purpose of the required deposit is to protect the. land owner's ability to collect the compensation ultimately awarded. The condemnation statute does not require that the deposit be equal to the compensation ultimately awarded. Rather, the condemnation statute requires that the deposit be "sufficient ... to pay the compensation .. . when ascertained." § 38-1-105(6)(a), C.R.S. The sufficient sum is to be based upon competent evidence of the market value of the property. Swift v. Smith, 119 Colo. 126, 138, 201 P.2d 609, 615 (1949). 35. Where less than the entire property is taken, compensation must include any damages to the residue of the property. § 38-1-114(2), C.R.S. Here, less than the entire property is being taken. 36. The valuation difference in the appraisals is lazge. The Town's first appraisal established a value for the easement of $40,500. The Town's second appraisal established a value of $25,000. 37. The Town's first appraisal provided opinions about other values, including the fee simple value of the hillside portion of the Property if subject to the easement, $$00,000. 38. Owners' appraisal, Exhibit 8, states an opinion about the proper amount of compensation in condemnation. The opinion addresses the value of the easement and damages to the remainder of the Property. The valuation date is August 10, 2009. Owners' appraisal values the easement area at $68,818 and the damages to the remainder at $540,770. 39. The key difference between the appraisals is the effect of the easement on the remainder of the Property. The Town's appraisals did not evaluate the effect. Therefore, it is given no value. The Town's appraisals simply value the specific land to be encumbered by the easement. 40.Owners' appraisal values the impact of the easement on the value of the entire Property. The bench to be traversed by the easement is a bench above the Roaring Fork valley floor. The bench is lazge enough to construct home sites. The bench is the most valuable portion of the Property for residential development. In light of the luxury homes most amenable to the !~_. 7 ~i t1 ~J~L~j Town ofBasalt v. Rowney Case No. P 09 CV 75 location, the existence of an easement, particularly the surface access aspect of the easement, will reduce the value ofthe Bench far residential development. 41. The Court finds Owners' appraisal more accurately addresses the measure of compensation Basalt may have to pay. Owners' appraisal is the most credible evidence of the sum which will be sufficient to pay compensation when the amount is determined 42. Since the condemnation includes a pipeline easement, Basalt's deposit must also include doable the estimated cost of restoring the easement area after the pipeline is installed. § 38-1- 101:5, C.R.S. Town.engineer Thompson estimated the cost of restoration at $15,000. Therefore, irr addition to depositing an amount sufficient to pay compensation when it is determined, Basalt must deposh an additional.$3.0,000 ... .. .... .. ................ ...... . _ . 43. Coopersmith suggested even higher values. Coopersmith's argument is based on Fiore's opinions about the potential retail sale values of luxury lots on the Bench. Fiore's opinions . presumed an approved subdivision with the infrastructure which makes a luxury lot ready for sale. Present fair market value of the interest condemned and the impact on the remainder in its present state as a single, raw parcel will be the measure of compensation in this condemnation action. Fiore's opinions are not directly relevant to the present issue,. the proper amount of a deposit. 44. The passibility that Basalt has pinked the most valuable portion of the Owners' Property for the easement may affect the future determination of the compensation due and the cost to Basalt ofthe easement. It does not defeat Basalt's decision to condemn the particular route Basalt seeks. 45. The Court fords the deposit sufficient to pay compensation is $616,000 and the deposit sufficient to restore the easement area is $30,000. Therefore, the Court finds the deposit necessary to grant immediate possession is $640,000. 46. Motion to 13ismiss: Irr her motion to dismiss, Coopersmith alleges a number of defects in the condemnation process pursued by Basalt. Of the defects alleged; the one which is a prerequisite to the filing of a condemnation petition is the requirement that Basalt engage in good faith negotiations to purchase the Property by agreement. The Court has concluded above that Basalt fulfilled this requirement. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is denied. .iUG Town of Basalt v. Dowuey Case No. P 09 CV 75 `au>-. 47. Immediate Possession: Plaintiff shall deposit into the registry of the Court the sum of $640,000. Upon that deposit, Plaintiff shall be entitled to the immediate possession and use of the easement area at issue in this case. The easement is fully described in Exhibit A attached to this order and incorporated here as a finding and order of the Court. Done on October 26, 2009. $Y THE COURT: .. ~. - AMES B. BOYD DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ~_ ~~_ 9 i .~... _ ..: t . _ S S , I ., ..- "- l , ~ - .. . ' . ~.. i ~ - ` ! SCHI'~iVES~{'~ ~ ?~©F2C?~~J~! i 3"~EYEF~ 'qF-=xms'o swags ;s7Fa ~ ~ cis m 4 P""_ . ~ ~~ - `_• i _.~ - - .. .. }tr3 w, atx, suae too r+„a: 9q%'ziss . 4 Po eat ao~s . ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~~ S' f7 R.Y ~ Y ~ R 5 G4€NWbgV SPRINGS; C(} s1 e0i ASpF~N; CO BfsFa cw~a av-t¢; co 8I23d 4 _ i r ' - 9JE5 ;9dsIa0~' 4]4=?.23-6J 27. . ' 9]f]^34$`5395 ~ _ ~ .... ~.__.:... e . r~'t: 9Z0-0455948. FX: 9T0925-Ii5) sX: 93Ct-348-5353 - 2E1~;_>~cess and iJtility Easeiiient' . ~ T"~,t~ steps d~~au~ I.o~a#ed oxt ~p~'cel af~arid d~sc?~bed ~x ~qa~r X09 at page ~E~t7; PzfIti~t ~tjz r~~cn'~1sy h~zene a~tdr r~£exre~ to as the Dd~uep Pae~sl, hei~ig 1a'catedxt TnacP 59; . S~tiesc ~ $s isfnp 8 Saiu~i, ~ $~Z ~.aftt~e 5'~ I~:~,, Pii&~tn ~t~YZtzt~ ~9rado, s. ~t~s~beu~g fvR~t€ty (~Q)'f~t ~t~ea #~tt (11}~ £~fdn e~li SPsle oftli,~ fv_L1t2~izig descnlied ceitterlii~e5, tvtii side Iiti~s 6eit~g shdttened or extended to mzet parcel lines: .I Accesa and [J$ility Ease~3ent T7a. `1 _ ~~~ozzzztg >~rl the wi~ste~ly line of said ISQq ney Pahl, frbic's'4~7ich afi~LQ 1?ras~ c~ masking a%Ie p,a~nt d of Traet 59 heart 1+°E!~'~I"W, 702.5 fcet£ thenee atarig au existusg ~csari a~ tta~c the #`iowlvg 14 vouz'ssis: _ ~~ ~~~Qls~~r=~~, ~s.~s tit 5} u£OSfF3'I?'~3,13.58feet 6~ ~T8`~°l~6'03~; 61:114 fit 9~ 55743f'45"E,I33.63 £eet 1 t} S57°4~>1~"E; x,17 ~eC 13~ S53"33`~0~'1~, 95.9;1 feet . 1~1~ S5~'13'A'~"~> 1133b feet; thetti~ departiuY said existing svad, rsr track , _ X89°09'5&" E~ I3Z,38. Feet, 1 Q £cet nartherly o~ft`asxcl paratEel tQ the south~tly land o£saicl Downey Parcel, tax apaint nu e said e~eist~rLg xaad dz track; tYaeztce vontuv nug along said . e7tisfi~3g z»acl of elC tlia f~iIIawing' ~e'ven. ("7~ vvuz'se~s.. 1~. I~x1~r13"tip, ~3.t~ feet ~~ l1T#17d4tr303"$, X7.35 feet ' 3} ~t~~°4~'0~"'V~"; ~ $5~a93 feet . 4~ I~i~?°S9'35"~, 49:35. feet 5} X14°16'3."R~',~ip:5:5feet ~.... 1~7~1.°6~'{},~ YY, ~~.~ ~.Paeit ~{1,2.F e~}7.~~. Yltetiea rle;iartingsaid ex4sEiiig xnac~ ar tsac~ N~~°~~'18"~~ &'7.Ff# .feet; th~ziee ~k~°4~'I~"E, ~~105fe~t I€l.feetu7esterlya~aa~dliaratieI #o the nr~i~eastei-t3rlin~ m~safi~ Ltziwnd"y°eeltaapoizltanfhe~pr#ltei'I~+Un~o~s~tI7~otvney~'arcel. . toeing. thePazuto.£'I'eiminus. ., ,. .. ~?;~,} - ..4' '. 3F... ;~ ~~?.~`~~ _ --' `-- - C` 4. i _ i ' A~eess anal Ubla~y tyxs~m~nt Ng. 2 ' . . $~gimiing af.a po?nt.ou~ ifie eastgrly lice of said Dowite~r Paruel~ram which the eastealy _ _ e ~oix;i ofsaxd Ps~zcel beats iV {9°~4' 14"oY, 55 82 feet; titeuee S'15~I9'04"~, 34.78 ' tf(eitce N84°4~'33"'GV; 53.02'feet tq tha afoemeationed PoYut,A, said point h?ing Yhd Pint ofTerqurius, Beatings are based bn t$e iuictbterly line of saidl}dw%tey Part ~atweera a yr8~$ cap fFL~ ;` rrXCrnoment masked Als 4, Traci 59, at the ~otWwest Cotner and the northeas6 eotriar, rna~3€ed with, a aluminum cap and #5 rebar tnarlecd I.S 14U6tl; said line hesfuug i t~T89°4fi'4-P~. ~. _. ~ .: ,. . . ,~C1' A~~~ss ~ f.Itflr"ty ~"as~e~nent -T~'~rcf .~'8, Secfiurt 1'8, ~ 8 :S; .R 8~'. (~ L7~ ftie .6th f~rt~t " Pitkr`n. Courr~, Co/orr`rLlp . ` FOtl~lr~ 3l$ RBG4F - ~ ' ' ~ PwiM GLO 7"lrpn Pipe 4nd Press and minyp Cnp' ~ ' - ~ L2p Mors. A.P. is Trod 5S LS. f4DG0. ' ~ • Nag 96'~a e'• - `~-~- Na84@ ~ ~- . ~ - , ~ 97395' Z7'ii96" - I Da~vrie,Y 3°orEe~ l~f ~~ 76" ~ ! • a sns, ¢ao ~ ~~ ~7 o ~ . /~, ~, Basalt i-li~h • a ~~ ftec: ~ .34t X79 _ { f r~ SC~fi.~£1/ / f ~~~Ifr^ / ry4 1 - rv ~ wC, 8 ~ U6Yiry, £ds2rtzenT No, 2 ¢ ~ - @' ~ .. . ~ ~ - ~` 2O" Accoss' & - ' I ~,. iJo. t ~~ ~ ' " SCALE: 1 = 2_QO~, . ~ ~ - m: ~ ~ ~_~~ i ~~. J'M~ . ¢nd Wej]prr; PIQ4}jG" ' .. pJa~ ' GINS TA BLE ~ .. ' .. ~ L1NE' ~1r ~LE . ~ - _ . L/N GPNG7IJ ~ ~B~q(7~YG .~~LIdE' " L6RFG7H ~.BFfiRLM(i '. . 4Y' ss.,~ , s9.~ .'~s°E' Lrs, .. S9.&7 ssr?s'sa^e. ~ C? PfIC?7~~ ,. Sd)'3748€' .L74: "f13.~6 :. S53"t:3'A.4'£'.. .. -- . L.~'~ ~ ~ 40.31 ~ S37 3.500 6 ~ ~ ~ L~15, - ~ 1,7F.78'. ~. S8@ 03 5'@."E - L4 ' .7.x.75 _ SP,S`f836'~'~ r-£Tfi _' ,: 6,344 .N~2'i2'3J`7v ~. L5 ~7J:5$~ - S6Q'7I3`t7"E ~ ~- Lf7 - 27.38 ' NF1T9S f13 E- ~: - E6 '~ ~-Sld ~ .. _ . ~ N@706l1.TE ~ L7@. ~ . f8593 ~1t24'4'd`d8'1q+ . ~ L7` ~. f3~sCi' ~ S@1 "7 '.TB E' ~~ .. ~ ... LIS .4'9.73• ... _ -I~72'9355"W ' _ $5TQ Lb' . .... 569'5'2}i3"€.~ ~ t?P ~ .. . ~219l55. ... f4'1B{7995' ~ ` . . ~ -17#63 L9 . .76`45"E'~. 557 ~G21 •..' .. 69..76 N-45`3 `58"W." . . . ~ lU<?78 ~'LfA. ' . .~ 57 :32~SE ~: -•L22 ,'.5$.'.67«. ~ ~Nf.F 7J1 ~3' ~ .. - LfT 4c^is . 56T44'TE'"Z•`~~ L2:.~ ~ 5.'.,Y7? .~ ~ _ -58.4'k3'`3.3 E' ~. _ - ,?S Ll2 ~T6 , 'S4&'7 5'E' ~ %.7~F ~. .7¢7& . :1~'d9'~' . . L25 az 1a: 'IJ9~2~9@`~` ~~. - .. ~$CHM(JESf_-F# GDRDOCF M-k~'E#. tNC. ' ~g„~I7X>~ EI s ~~~~' ~ •. ,isw ~'+smm:GCUre zoo ~. ' ~ . y~ .. ~ . GtefRY6oc SMeMN?. cc~muoo d[90I ~QF ~ee~34` & Uf,.fllb,~' ~'i'8S'PiR2 eIIL (S~J}945 IOpnF PPX f9]O}4:F5-5948 - SGNM(]ESER (GOfl60N (METEfi' R+p£Ir Eowg(od (97P1425-8727 ' arvae.EERS I.suave:=rcs. 4a~sm 8(1RE" G04sX0>3ss-3355 .6E.fra autos-#es WM: 1~r2-dO Cmm3Y•kn Ea ^~Tt eviuY . : ".. t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~----..__.~,~..._ _. _ .... _ .._ ._._.._._.... __ -----Y .~.,__. _.._~---- ------- ~~,,. DISTRICT COURT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Court Address: 506 E. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611 Petitioner: Town of Basalt, Colorado v. Respondents: Richazd E. Downey; Radine Schaffer Coopersmith; Greenberg, Heringer & Wazd, LLC a • COURT USE ONLY Colorado limited liability company; and Betty Diller as Public Trustee and Treasurer of Archuleta County, Case Number: 09-CV-75 Colorado Div.: 3 Ctrm.: Attorneys for Petitioner Town of Basalt Attorney: Austin, Peirce & Smith, P.C. Name: Thomas Fenton Smith Address: 600 E. Hopkins Avenue, Suite 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone Number: 970-925-2600 Fax Number: 970-925-4720 E-mail: tsmitha(~,a~s-pc.com Atty. Reg.#: 6463 (Smith) NOTICE OF DEPOSIT WITH COURT REGISTRY Petitioner, Town of Basalt, Colorado, through its attorneys, hereby submits a deposit of $640,000.00, to the Court Registry, in accordance with the Court's Order Regazding Immediate Possession dated October 26, 2009. Dated: November 9, 2009 ~.. AUSTIN, PEIRCE S H, P.C. F:\Fites M-Z1Town of Basalt\DowneyWotice of Deposit with Court Regislry.doc 4 By Thomas Fento S 'th, # 63 600 East Hopkins Ave., Suite 205 Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: 970-925-2600 Facsimile: 970-925-4720 Attorneys for Peh'tioner Town of Basalt, Colorado ~uu~;30 _. _ _ . DISTRICT COURT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO NOTICE OF-EPOSIT WITH COURT REGISTRY Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 9th day of November, 2009, I served a true and correct copy of NOTICE OF -EPOSTT WTTH COIIRT REGISTRY, via Lexis/Nexis electronic filing, electronic mailing, facsimile, and/or United States mail, postage pre- paid to the following: Radine Shaffer Coopersmith 209 Hermosa Street P.O. Box 5994 Pagosa Springs, CO 81147 Facsimile (509} 562-9819 Jack Reutzel Reutzel & Associates, LLC 9725 E. Hampden Ave., Ste 300 Denver, CO 80231-4918 Facsimile (303} 694-3831 Telephone (303) 694-1982 j ack@reutzelandassoc.dcom Natalie olden, egal Assistant F:\Fites M-2\Town of Basalt\DOwney\TTo[ice of Aepositwith Court Registry.doc ~~1~3~ -owH of liasa~Y 2 415 3 .~_~ Deposit Case 2009 CV785 Transadlon 27735730 I ALPINE BANK w TOWN OF $ASALT P'o sox3asl > 24153 YOLMIDLI4ND AVE:` BASALTr DOLORADO 81621 BASALT CO $1621" - 4 62-340/1021 - '-, ..(970) 27 4703 . ; -€' ! 4v !Suc Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars and no cents i ; o Dn E aMODUT 11/05!09 :$640,000.00 a Z Clerk of the Pitkin bounty Combined Courts m 3 THE RDER .8 F -,. ` nUMOfl SIGIJ~ID ~~u~32 9 . , .. _ . f~ _. • e .F. a y' - ~ , `.i., ; ' - ~ ` ~ 1 - J . fl a ! - - _ transaction: ,~ - 11/09!2009 11:5$ RM DLE TR0999tl8 ~ - - ~ District Courf, Pltkln County Pitk in Gount~ Courthouse - 506 East Main, Sulte'E Aspen, CO 81611 ,~ - - ~ 970-925-7635 - v ~ Payor: TOWN DF BASALi Case #r 2009CV-000075 ' P-- s .. TOWN OF BASALT ' ~ - ~~ DOWNEY, RICHRRD E et a! ~ - - ~ - RCP #: 2009CV-000075-0005 ___= Descrirti on ='. Amomit ---------- --__- .,, ~ Bands - 690,000 00 _ ~ ~____ = . Receipt Tatal, tl. .:: . . ' $690.,000 00 ., Rmount Tendered...,,,,,,,; $540, D00.00 - Chance Due ...............: g,00 . ~ ... Paaman} Tyre .............: ~ CRCK ~ - - ' Racount Receivable Due..,; ~ $, 00 _____________~-_____,_;-__ - per order of court - ~ ~~ ' _ ... - . - ..o ~ . ~ ~ i I ,. i . - ~ . - - ... ~ - - ~ - .. _. ... -... ...: a: ~Q:~~33 - Page 1 of 2 ....; Transaction 1D: Submitted by: Authorized by: Authorize and file on: LexisNexis File & Serve Transaction Receipt 27953578 Natalie Golden, Austin Peirce & Smith PC Thomas Fenton Smith, Austin Peirce & Smith PC Nov 9 2009 12:48AM MST ~~ Court: CO Pi[kin County Distnct Court 9th JD Division/Courtroom: 3 -Division 3 Case Class: Civil Case Type: Condemnation Case Number: 2009CV75 Case Name: TOWN OF BASALT and DOWNEY, RICHARD E e[ al Transaction Option: Serve Only -Public Billing Reference: Town of Basalt v. Downey Read Status for e-service: Not Purchased Documents List 1 Document(s) Attached Document, 2 Pages Document ID: 25520212 PDF Format I Orioi nal Format Document Type: Access: Statutory Fee: Linked: Notice Filed Public $0.00 Document title: Notice of Deposit with Court Registry `~, Close All ^' Sending Parties (1) Party Party Type A ttorney Firm Attorney Type TOWN OF BASALT Petitioner Smith, Thomas Fenton Austin Peirce & Smith PC Priva tely Retained Attorney J Recipients (2) '~- Service List f27 Option Party ~ Type Attorney Firm Attorney Type Methotl Service COOPERSMITH, RADINE Respondent Goff, Richard Goff, Richard Privately Retained E- SHAFFER James lames Attorney Service Service DOWNEY, RICHARD E Respondent Reutzel, lack Reutzel & Privately Retained E- Eugene Associates LLC Attorney Service Lcl Additional Recipients (Ol !.1 Case Parties Party COOPERSMITH, RADINE SHAFFER DILLER. BETTY DOWNEY. RICHARD E GREENBERG HERRINGER WARD LLC N/A ~..:, Party Attorney Type Respondent Goff, Richard James Respondent Pro Se Respondent Reutzel, lack Eugene Firm Goff, Richard lames Pro Se- Reutzel & Associates LLC Attorney Type Respondent Pro Se N/A Boyd, James 8 Smith, Thomas Privately Retained Attorney Pro Se Privately Retained Attorney Pro Se- Pro Se CO Pitkin County District Court Primary Judge 9th JD Privately Retainetl https:!/w3.fileandserve.lexisnexis.corn/WebServer/WebPages/F'ileAndServe/prcReviewSu... 11/9!2009 Page 2 of 2 TOWN OF BASALT Petitioner Fenton Austin Peirce & Smith PC Attorney Close. _. _. ~''' ~XS~~XI~-. About LexisNexis 1 Terms & Conditions ! PnvacY I Customer Support - i-888-529-75&7 1Y Copyright ©2009 LexisNexis®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. Ali rights reserved. ~~c~~35 https:!/w3.fileandserve.lexisnexis.com/WebServer/WebPages/FileAndServe/prcReviewSu... 11/9/2009' ^Vatalie Golden From: LexisNexis File & Serve [TransactionReceipt@fileandserve.lexisnexis.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 11:49 AM To: Natalie Golden Subject: Case: 2009CV75; Transaction: 27953578 Transaction Receipt To: Natalie Golden Subject: Transaction F.eceipt This email is to confirm receipt of your documents. The transaction option you selected was "Serve Only - Public". The details for this transaction are listed below. Court: CO Pit kin County District Court 9th JD Case Name: TOWN OF BASALT and DOWNEY, RICHARD E e`_ al Case Number: 2009CV75 Transaction ID: 27953578 Document Title(s): " Notice of Deposit with Court Registry (2 pages) Authorized Date/Time: Nov 9 2009 11:98AM MST Authorizer: Thomas Fenton Smith Authorizer's Organization: Austin Peirce & Smith PC Sending Parties: TOWN OF BASALT Served Parties: DOWNEY, RICHARD E COOPERSMTTH, RADINE SHAFFER Thank you for using LexisNexis File & Serve. ~,"uestions? For prompt, courteous assistance please contact LexisNexis Customer Service by phone at 1-888-529-7567 (24/7). ~.. 1 i;i~~:7~3G ~.. Attachment 6 Pitkin County 1041 Application Figures ~.- ui3~~337 BASALT SOUTH SIDE TANK PITKIN CO. 1041 APPLICATION J~ g ~~ -• --~• ~ - ~~ ~~~ ~. "-_ PREPARED BY: b5 btron - , ~ rte`' Y `~, ° ~ -~' ~~f A;~ - --- ~ ,- "~" ' : , SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. IF $4bSte. ", ~ I I B W. 6TH STREET, SUITE 200 of ILO ~~ 'yysu-'-~i~,,.y` ~~CfI~~ GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO B GOI SHEET INDEX '.b~_ s _ ~ a~ '~, (970) 945-1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 g700 - ~ - ~ ~a ~:• ~ a~ ~1 ASPEN, COLORADO (97O) 925-8727 -- ~ ~.' ~ - CO/ER SHEET • CRESTED BurrE, CO (970) 349-5355 v ' •~ ~~ OK~1ni ••-y !~ 1 LEGAL OESCR/POOH C - r ~ .~=~\ ~ \ /~~:: Rpdio T r .~ 2-3 ACTMTY ENVELOPE ANO S/TE P[AN _ ~ \\ ~! ,,;/ v'• ,\ ~J°~ 4 SLOP£ ANALYS/5 - ~i ~ K~ ~~ ~ ~ i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL ~~ THIS ACTIVITY ENVELOPE AND SITE PLAN WI TN JESTING AND HOME ~` ~ ' ` \~ ~~ ~,,'~ ~ ~'~~ ,~~a_,--= `~~==`--"~•' SCHMUESER ~ GORDON ~ MEYER RE~EwEO ENO APPROUEO e r HE oEPA~RTME i oFB oMMUNITY ~ \, BM _ ° V °- '"~>`~ DEVELOPMENT THIS_ DAY OF 2009. APPROVAL OF ~iG4l ~ ~c E N G I N E E R S I S U R V E Y O R S THIS SITE PLAN /S SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF `,: --~ e ~ ~~ \SUnP y ,' a RESOLUTION N0. ~ - __, o i ` _ _ ~ -SOU ` SIDE TANK ~~~s / ~~~ •~ ~; j$. `« ` • a` PROJECT ENG/NEER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ . ~~ •~..,~ BASAL T HGH°~G~H ° DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER L. LEHRMAN, P.E. 42729 v '~\ ~ iO ~ 6O~"'o ~Jy ~~ ~~` , ~ , j•-,.,. ~ ~~ ACCEPTANCE FOR RECORDING ~ '~ ~-. TH/5 ACTIJITY ENI/ELOPE AND 5/TE PLAN W/TH JESTING AND - ~ ~~ ACT/I/lTY ENI/ELOPE AND S/TE PLAN W/TH I/ESTING AND SPECIAL SPECIAL REJIEW FOR MAJOR PUBL/C UTILITIES HAS BEEN i f.-i I ,\.~1 / ~.._I REV/EW FOR MAJOR PUBLIC (JTILITY ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND /~~ ~J~ ~.;,~ _ `1 ,~~ RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ON THIS DAY - _ ~ OF _, 2009. NOTE: 1047 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD AREAS EXIST THAT MIGHT AFFECT APPLICANT CLERK AND RECORDER THE PROPERTY ANY IMPROJEMENTS AND OCCUPANCY THEREOF. wAIJER TOWN OF BASALT THE PROJISIONS OF THESE REGULATIONS DO NOT IN ANYWAY 101 M/DLAND AVENUE ASSURE OR IMPLY THAT AREAS OUTSIDE OF DES/GNATED BASALT, CO 81621 ~ ~~+ a+E a~ HAZARD AREAS WILL BE FREE FROM HAZARDS, OR THAT o ,a, ,,,„,,,~W„,,,~R,,,,q,o„~A„~„ ~~o, ~,, APPROVED MITIGATION MEASURCS WILL GUARANTEE THE SAFETY OF ANY PROPERTY ~~ ROAD DRAINAGE CROSSING (BLlul) EX/STING CONTOURS / PROPOSED CONTOURS // RADING IN THE VICINITY OF TANK lS ANTICIPATED TO EXCEED 50 CY PROPOSED I/MP BERM \Ill ~ '1 SOUTH SIDE TANK LOCATION ~~ ~ ~~ _\~~~~" ~\ PRELIMINARY PROPOSED ROAD ALIGNMENT S ~ ` ~ EXISTING 3 FT WIDE FOOT PATH EXISTING CONTOUR PRELIMINARY PROPOSED GRADING CONTOUR PROPOSED ACTIVITY' ENI/ELOPE AND DISTURBANCE AREA PROPOSED 20 FT. BLM EASEMENT BOUNDARY PROPOSED 16 F7 DISTURBANCE AREA BOUNDARY 589'46'47"W 973 45' EXISTING ACCESS PROPOSED DOWNEY EASEMENT BOUNDAR AND Acn~rrr ENAELOP TY BOUNDARY LINE ROAD DRAINAGE CROSSING (DOWNEY) GRAPHIC SCALE tenon) I mm =Loo n WATER LANK INFORMATION BASE ELEVAAON OF 6812 FT TANK DIAMETER J4 FT TANK NE/GHT 3! FT ACCESS ROAD AROUND TANK 10 FT WIRE NGre THIS GRADING P(AN REPRESEN6 A PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN ONCE THE PERMITS ARE /N PLACE THE FINAL GRADING PLAN WILL BE DE/ELOPEO °o ~~ ~ ~ ; PROPOSED 20 F7 ACTIVITY ~EN</ELOPE AND DOWNEY EASEMENT BOUNDARY PROPOSED 16 FT DISTURBANCE AREA EXISTING 3 FT. WIDE FOOT PATH BUREAU OF LANG MANAGEMENT ,,J , DOWNEY PROPERTY N89'09 58'IN 1012.49' N89°46'49'E ~-Z Z4.46' /_ ~~~ / / ~ \\• ~ ^O ~ ; ~~ ~~~. ~ ~. ~a ~ Q EXIST/NG 10 FT WIDE r ACCESS ROAD BASALT HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY PROPOSED 20 FT WIDE ACTIVIT. ,. AND BLM EASEMENT BOUNDARY 16 FT WIDE DISTURBANCE AREA RFSD UAL/N EASEMENT LEGAL OESCRIPT/ON' A ship or lane mfney within Basp/f Hyb Scnvo/ Parcel os tlescnbee m Bvvx 156 of Page J6' Sec(mn !B, Tvwnsmp B SvuM, Avnge 86 west o/ //re bin Pnhcipp/ MeniVpn o/ in PRkm Lounfy, Lola coda one being m re porecmarly vesenbee bs {allows: Seib strip o/ lane Deing Iwen(y-rM /eel (15% in wiern, evlenenq twelve mp v e nvl{ leaf rn wiefn (lI5% v ben sNe o/ the {ol/v wing described centerline, in r fnbf Ma ew(erivr bovnevry noes v/ said sbrp snvll be /eng(henee m shortened as ssery ro mrm a pn6naaas shre a a<eynewmry-live leaf (zs% ;n wiern ps mfrows: Easement I eegioolog[ef v poiof po foe west /me o/ sole By:arc H;qn sanop/ Ppral amp ee/nq v point an me msreny line o/ ma Powney Pmcel v mreeem BovN 609 of Page 480 /mm whence the [ nvrtn c o/ soie porceb bean N1T46'!5"E v ergfvnce vl IJ 14 lee( with v// bevnngs being ralp6re fv 589'46'41"W the ! evbe(ween /Dune m ants /or Me norfneasf c o/ Me Powney Parce/ neing v 5/B" rebor end aluminum rap slamp¢tl [s ]4060 one fbe nvrfnwesf c ar svitl Powney Parcel ee l"pipe wun v ememl Lone once Ledo) brass pap smmpee AP4, Tmar 59: coined ene i lrowinq two (z) a prory v line pvrouer fo one a achy Twelve one v e hall /ref (125% saufn or Me nvrthvly nhes v/ soie BasoR Nrgh Senvvl Paine%eN69'46'49"E a ersfvnce a{ 114.94 reef thence 558'!6"01"E v eisfonce a/ 2]B 4! /eel fp Pvinf A; fnence 558'16"01"E cbntnuing along the line parallel fv one rwelre one o e nm/ lrer seam p/ me nprtnery oae pr soie eeson re9n scnoo/ Pomel o eisronae p/ aoov leer fnence 511'J6'OJ^E o 6sronce o/ nJ 65 /eat fnence 541'S095-w a eisonce o{ 145.0) leaf fo Point B; fnence S42'S0'!5'W v ersfance v{ 11551 /eat (o Ppmf G Mence N4TJB'4J"W a distance al SB 6> /eef fv Pornf B; (hence N4TJ0'4]"W a eis(ance vl 454.0T {eef fo Pbinf E Mence N4JJV'4>"W p ersbnce v{ 20645 {aef fv soie west nhe of Ne Basvlf High Schpp/ Parcel one ms(erly line a/ lne BowneY Parce[ Ta9elher wiM the fvllvwrnq a enf spurs each being v ship ar land Twenty-/ire /eef (25% m wiern, extending Iwelre one o e M1a/{ feet in wielh (1251 a evcnssive o/ foe lpl/Owing described centerline, in such v r !hv( the erferr'or boundary lines p/nsvie sine soon be /m9rnenee p snerrmee v sdry ro mrm p pnhnaaas sore a Deft twiny-ire veer (zs7 in wiern ps ronpws: Sour A, begimm~q pf Pvinf A og vescribeveobpre, (hence SJ!'4356"W a tlisfvnce v/ 5/.J4 fee(; Spur B, beginning pl Poinl B os vesmeee above, thence N48'19'41"W a ehtonce v/ 114d {eef Spur L, beginning pl Pornf Los vesvieee abate, fnence 54I50~15"W o Orslance o/ 680J {aef. Spar B, beginning vl Pornf Bas eesvibee aeove, fnence N41'16'46"E a eisfonce v{ 59.16 {eeG spur E, beginning of Painl E as eesm6ee adore, fnerrce N4T16'46"E a distance a{ 51.44 heG Svie easement contains LJB acres more ar less and rs sub/ecf (a easements one encumbrances v/ record PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BLM TANK SITE EASEMENT LEGAL DESCR/PTION- wvfw tank s.(e :;(voted in Cv vemmenf Lvf 2J, Sa[fron !R. T b B i n, Fenge B6 W o/ /nc 6M Princ;ppl Mer;O ion, Prrkrn Count. Lolorvev, whence AP 9 v/ Trocfn 59 m spiO rSecfron l8 beprsfN Y 51841'94' E 666 ]J Leer RFSD ACC 5 AS MENT A O 5 RIPBON' A sf/p vl lone entire/y wiWn Bvsv/f Kgh Scnovl Parcel vs tlescdbee in BvvN ]56 of Page J4: secb'on (6, Townsnrp 6 svufn, Range 66 esf at the 6fn Pnnnpal Meriden c/l m P/fk.n Cvunfy, Cvlameo one being more partrcvlarly eascribee os follows: sp~e s6fp p/ lone being ewmry-ore i ae [zs7 in w:een, emnm'rrg <wa/.,, one one nou leer .n wrem pzs% vcb s.ee v/ Me /ollawing OescrAee cen(ern'ne. In sucn v rap r that Me a+ferior boundary Ones v soie ship shall be lengMenee or snarfenee vs need saly rv /ormn ve cvnb'nuvus ship evacfly fwenry- ae//eef (15% in wle(n vs /allows: Beglnninq of v point vn the west lme o/ soie Basolf Hgh Scnvo/ Pv¢el also being v poihf vn the easier/y Lne v/ the Bawney Porce/ os recorded m Book 609 or Page 400 bum whence Me comma north come v/ soie pored/s bears N!]'46'!5"E p eisfonce al IJ I4 /eef with all bevnngs being relative fo 569'46'4]"W Me bne between Dune monuments Ipr fbe northeast car or Me Downey Parcel being v 5/6' rebor an8 v/uminum cop stamped (5 !4060 one the nvrMwesr nc o/ soie Powney Parcel v I'pree with p General Lane 0{BCe (GLOJ brass c stamped AP4, Tract 59; fhenro Lne /ollawing Mo (1J c along v line parallel fv one a pcfly rwebe one v e hall fee! (125% svufn of lne nvrrneey lines of sate Bpsvll Hrgn Schvv/ Parcel NB9'46'49"E o eisfonce v/ !]4.94 /eat Mence 556'16"01"E v distance v/ SBL1B /eef fo the p~nl v/ terminus. Said a amen( canfvirms 049 acres more or less one ~s sub/eef fv easements one encumbrances v/ record v N89'33 3L 1382.71 DOWNEY EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION Two slrgs vl lpn0 located o v parcel o/ lane OesnAee in Book 609 el Oe9e 400, Pr)kin Cpun(y records. he"ern alter re/erree fo os the Downey Pnrce% being /OCOfee r"rr Tmcf 59 Secfron IB, Tv wnshrp B Saufh, Rvn9e 66 Wcs[ v/ Me 6[M1 PM, P:[krh Cpvn ly. Ca/ameo, sale rVgs being Men (y (20f leaf xoe, fm (JOJ leer v each side or the /vllowing described cen(r/bas, wAn sive ones bern9 snarfenee or erfendee fo eat Pv¢el nn Access one U6Nly Easement Nb. l Be9lnnrnq on the westerly Lne a/ soie Downey Parce( /tom which v GLO brass cap marlrnq mg/e point 4 a/ Uocr 59 bears NBO'a5'S r'W ]0254 /eeL Mence along on er3ling rind ar track foe /albw,ng !4 murses:54JJ1YJ"f. 65 J4 /eeG 54]'5]'46"E. 106T] /ref, sJI SS'00"E. 40.J! lee( SD'rB J6"E. J935 /eeG 560'OJ~rI"E. 11 SB /ref, NB I'06'OJ"E, 6/.04 ee( 58!'1036-E, /34J /eeG 565'S1YJ"E. B6. ]0 reef. 55TJ6Y5'E, r]J 6J /eeG 5lJ'JT 29"E, !0116 eeG 56T44'!1"E, 4Z I] /re!, 54B'!9'S1'E ]625 lee(. 55J'%J'40"E 9541 /eeG s5J'IJ'49"E. NJJ6 fret Inence eepart~nq soie etis(in9 rope or back 589'09'58"E /J2 J8 /eeG r0 lee( norther/y o// one pain/le/ ro the southerly line o/ soi8 Rowney PameG (o v point on the soie ewisfing rave ar crack; Nance continuing along soie exrsfm9 rope or cinch Me /ollawing en (]J m rses: NJT IT'IJ"W. 6J04 /eeG NOT46'OTE, 1>Je /eef, N14'4SBB°w, IB593 /eef. Nl1'S9'S5"W.u49.J5 /eeG Nl4'16'Jr"W, 11055 Teel, N4s3]'S8"W. 6536 /eeG N41'01~01'W, 58.61 leaf (o v Point A thence eeparlinq soie erisrinq rave or frock N4T14'!g^E. 81 r0 lea/; thence N1T46'!5"E. 61/.05 Ner IB Ner wesrmiy a/ am pemnel m foe norrnmsf.ny me el sale Bawney Penal fe v po,m pn me norrheey Nne o/ soie Ovwney Parce% soie point being the Point v/ Terminus, soie parcel cavfoininq 1.16 es (50, 66L86 sv RJ, more or /est. Access one Urili(y Easement No. 1 8e9innrnq df v Pornf on Lne evsfvY tine o/ soie BowneY Parcel Nom wnln Me eoslery ang/e pain/ v/ soie Parcel bears Nr9Y4'14'W, 55.81 Leep fnence 5]5'19'09"W J4JB eef; fnence NB9'4JJJ'W, sJ g1 Ieef to Ne vlpremenlronee Porn/ A, saN point being Me Pobf o/ Terminus, soie parcel mnfaming IJ9959 spuvre feel, m o s. Bevrvn9e are based n foe nvrfherty Lne o! sore Downey Parce/ beMem v brvu cap L(0 m enf markee AP 4, Trxf 59. of Me nvrthwesl c one Me northeast catnap mprke8 with c bluminum cop one (5 rebor markee LS 1406v, saN line Dearing N89'46'4]-f SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER """- B RLN9KW LNTE BY HMENT 3 ATT b6 /". eawaB - .BZ, B W. 6TN STREET, SURE 200 Town of Basalt o 16.1 w>K,N LOVNIY PERMn APPLKATWN ~,b, SKV AC Wpm ,, su 1 GLEN W000 SPRINGS. COLORROO B I BO I ACTIVITY ENVELOPE 19701945-1004 FAX 1901945-5948 [~'f j fbf.: oe X09 SCHMUESER ~ GORDON ~ MEYER ASPEN, COLORA00 I97O) 9ZS-B7Z7 ~ Sou t(1 Side Tank & PROPERTY INFO °~~ P<, ~ 4 s I au wrerons ORESTEp 6UTTE, CO (9T01349'S355 . FN' EASEMENT ACCESS AGREEMENTS- PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WILL BE MAINTAINED BY ENIBTING PROPERTY OWNERS TOWN OF BASALT HAS ESTABLISHED LEGAL EASEMENTS FOR UTIL/N AND ACCESS W/TH ROAR/NG FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1(RFBOJ. BUREAU OF LANG MANAGEMENT /BLMJ AN0 PRNq TE (DOWNEYJ PROPERTY BLM AND DOWNEY PRGPERn' AGREEMENT RECORDS ARE AS FOLLOWS' BLM -APPLICATION FOR TRANBPORATION AND UAL TTY SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES ON FEDERAL LINOS STANDARD FORM 299: SUBMITTED ON NO/EMBER 2J. 2006 AMMENDED ON JUNE 22, 200] APPRO/EO ON NO UENBER r2. ?009 OGWNEY PROPERTY -EASEMENT CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED /lA THE FOLLOW/NG LEGAL D000MENTATION- PETIAON IN CONDEMNATION SUBMITTED APR/L J, 2009 ORDER REGARDING IMMED/ATE POSSESSION Or70BER 26, 2009 NOPCE OF DEPOSIT WITH COURT REGISTRY NO /EMBER 9, 2009 Lu~.1?33 ~... Attachment 7 Pitkin County Agreement for Payment of Amendment Application Fees e_ ~~ ~~~.j~40 PITKiN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND USE APPLICATION PEES PITKINCOUNTY(hereinafter"COUNTY")and "S'nwwi OF $ASAt.T (hereinafter "APPLICANT") AGREE AS FOLLOWS: L APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for M Wq~ A M@plDMENT Te A C~EyEt~wtpNT ~~~^IT (hereinafter, the "PROJECT"). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 32-2002 establishes a fee snvcture for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. The fee structure is based on the COUNTY'S policy that development shall pay, in full, [he cost of development review in the COUNTY. Fees have been set to be consistent and fair to the public and to reflect the expense incurred in providing such services to the public. 3. APPLICANI' and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed PROJECT, it may not be possible at the time of application to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. 4. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that fees charged for the processing of land use applications shall accumulate if an application includes more than ooe type of land use review. 5. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is imprmcticable for COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Board of Cowrty Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally required findings for project approval, unless cun•ent billings are paid in full prior to decision. ~... 6. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that inconsideration of the COUNTY'S waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, A PPLICANT shall pay a base fee in the amount of $~-L3_ which is based on _ honrs of staff time, and if actual time spent by staff to process the application exceeds the average number of bows by more than 20%, then the COUNTY will bill the APPLICANT quarterly for the additional time spent. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. PITKIN COUNTY 'C tti n o-( )~Y~ S« 1 { ("APPLICANT") Cindy Honben Community Development Director _7)[ ~ --~ 1. CIrYz /IlE nl~l. r-~ [n(.d.~L-n ~.in~cr' rint Name and Title (if applicable) Uate• IVud, f0 Zeuy Mailing Address: COI MIDLAND AVEt.1ttP B ASA~r 1 G~~ t3 trstl t3~`.lJlY ~.. Attachment 8 Owner Consent to Process Ammendment and Authorizing the Representative •~ +.::d~ OwN U,~, ~ ~~ t>~, BASALT November 10, 2009 Mr. Mike Kraemer, Planner Pitkin County Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Basalt South Side Tank Minor Amendment to a Development Permit Dear Mr. Kraemer: As part of the Minor Amendment to a Development Permit for the Town of Basalt's (the Town) approved South Side Tank, the Town is providing you with this letter as consent to process this amendment. Furthermore, the Town authorizes Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. to act as its representative throughout the application process. ~„ Sincerely, 1 ~ ---~- ~~~(ct,~.~~~ ~~ ~G~_- Larry Thompson, P.E. Town Engineer. 101 MIDLANn AVE. - BASALT, C0 81621 - 970-927-4701 -Fax 970-927-4703 ~i~`~.,`?4~ PITKIN G~,,.JNTY COMMUNITY DEVELC;~IAENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00028566 Name: TOWN OF BASALT Date:11/16/2009 Project Address: NO ADDRESS ASSIGNED Type: check # 24388 Permit Number Fee Description 0122.2009. PLAN 0122.2009. PLAN PP- Flat Fee PP- Clerk Tech Fee Total: Amount 748.00 25.00 773.00